When someone cites [x, y, z], that someone is not credible instead of being not credible along with [x, y, z]?
Besides, the parent's whole point is that NY Post is the source, here!
But I would also point out that a lot of people here on HN (in past discussions) and elsewhere have noted that the New York Times and the Washington Post also publish creatively interpreted news (or outright creative writing) at times.
Despite this news articles from these sources are considered independently without outright dismissal due to past reporting.
I absolutely despise the word now, to the point I'll cringe a bit even when it's used legitimately.
In my book, it is much more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Great phrasing. Reporting dirt on a faction will drive clicks to FROM all factions, including the smeared faction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
Of course I'll take a tabloid that might be slightly right of center over that.
"In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[65]
The Post commonly publishes news reports based entirely on reporting from other sources without independent corroboration. In January 2021, the paper forbade the use of CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as sole sources for such stories.[66]"
65: Jonathan Trichter (June 16, 2004). "Tabloids, Broadsheets, and Broadcast News" (PDF). Pace Poll Survey Research Study. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 23, 2004. Retrieved June 7, 2007. 66: Robertson, Katie (January 13, 2021). "New York Post to Staff: Stay Away From CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 1, 2021.